Smith v. Lindsey

8 Citing cases

  1. Forsyth v. Smith

    164 P.2d 391 (Okla. 1945)

    "In a case properly triable to the court without a jury, and the court having made findings of fact, and said findings of fact are not clearly against the weight of the evidence, and the judgment of the court is based upon the findings of fact, the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal." To the same effect see Smith v. Spencer, 8 Okla. 459, 58 P. 638; Smith v. Lindsey, 91 Okla. 8, 215 P. 791; Nickel v. Janda, 115 Okla. 207, 242 P. 264; Beams v. Step, 116 Okla. 291, 244 P. 775; Lowe v. Hickory, 176 Okla. 426, 55 P.2d 769; Dotterer v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co., 78 Okla. 67, 188 P. 1055; Roberts v. Roberts, 175 Okla. 602, 53 P.2d 671; and Johnson v. Rowe, 186 Okla. 60, 89 P.2d 955. The plaintiff urges in his cross-appeal that since there was a period of eight months and 15 days during which no work contemplated by the association was performed, he should not have been charged with a portion of office expenses during that time.

  2. Cotcha v. Ferguson

    25 P.2d 789 (Okla. 1933)

    " See, also, Smith v. Lindsey, 91 Okla. 8, 215 P. 791, wherein this court said: "It is true the witnesses on both sides were unlearned Indians and their language the language of untutored children, but the court trying the case had them all before him and could observe their demeanor on the witness stand and determine the weight of the testimony and the credit to be given to each one, and this court cannot say that the weight of the testimony was not with plaintiffs' witnesses, and under the well-established and oft-repeated rule of this court, will not disturb the findings of the trial court"

  3. Yekcha v. Texas Company

    275 P. 312 (Okla. 1929)

    "Upon the question of marriage or non-marriage, it was not error to admit in evidence a certified copy of the application for enrollment of the alleged child of the marriage, including the affidavit of the mother filed with the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes." Johnson et al. v. Perry et al., 54 Okla. 23, 153 P. 289; Perryman v. Sharp; Rees v. Perryman, 71 Okla. 242, 176 P. 625; Smith v. Lindsey, 91 Okla. 8, 215 P. 791. It is contended that the affidavit does not purport to say that Marche Yekcha was the father of the plaintiff.

  4. Nickel v. Janda

    242 P. 264 (Okla. 1925)   Cited 28 times
    In Nickel et al. v. Janda et al., 115 Okl. 207, 242 P. 264, the Supreme Court held, quoting from the syllabus: "Deeds are solemn instruments, and it is right to suppose that what is stated in a deed represents the true state of things; and equity, justice, and good conscience require no more than that a party to such instrument should be precluded from contradicting it to the prejudice of another person, when that other, or a person claiming through or under him, has been induced to alter his position on the faith of the instrument."

    Dustin Grocery Feed Co. v. Lucas, 91 Okla. 11, 215 P. 417; Chadwell v. Brown, 88 Okla. 44, 211 P. 410; Lockett v. U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Co., 89 Okla. 142, 214 P. 687; Bank of Big Cabin v. Lyons, 91 Okla. 1, 215 P. 427. To the same effect are the following: Parks v. Roach, 88 Okla. 19, 210 P. 402; Bernard v. McRay, 89 Okla. 1, 213 P. 82; McLaughlin v. Yingling, 90 Okla. 159, 213 P. 552; Davis v. Keeche Oil Gas Co., 89 Okla. 226, 214 P. 711; Denison v. Phipps, 87 Okla. 299, 211 P. 83; and Smith v. Lindsey, 91 Okla. 8, 215 P. 791. Mary J. Nickel admits she signed a quitclaim deed to the lands in the year 1912, wherein she named Francis M. Nickel as grantee, and that this deed was signed by her while she was living in New Mexico with her son, but she claims the deed was altered, after she executed the same, by the insertion of the following words, to wit:

  5. Barnes v. Morris

    231 P. 466 (Okla. 1924)   Cited 9 times

    s for a valuable consideration, and for a further period of five years, and until after the death of the father, making no claim of any interest in the land, cannot now be heard to say that a resulting trust was created in their favor by the conveyance from Hendon to the defendant Anna Morris, basing their claim upon an alleged promise of Anna Morris to reconvey the lands to the plaintiff, where the evidence as to the verbal promise is conflicting, and is determined by the court adversely to the plaintiffs. The cause having been tried to the court, and judgment rendered after full hearing of all the evidence, and the evidence on the question of the plaintiffs promise to reconvey being conflicting, this court will not weigh the evidence to determine the preponderance thereof, and the finding of the court upon the disputed question of fact will be given the same weight and effect as the verdict of a jury, and, where reasonably supported by the evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal (Smith v. Lindsay, 91 Okla. 8, 215 P. 791), and where the finding of the court is general such finding is a finding of each specific thing necessary to sustain the general, finding, and where such finding is not clearly against the weight of the evidence, the judgment will be affirmed. Watashe v. Tiger, 88 Okla. 77, 211 P. 415; Denison v. Phipps, 87 Okla. 299, 211 P. 83; Mott v. Nelson, 96 Okla. 117, 220 P. 617; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Keith, 97 Okla. 55, 221 P. 1003; Wood v. Wood, 94 Okla. 86, 221 P. 24; Billings v. News Publishing Co., 96 Okla. 167, 221 P. 12; Billings v. Eagle Print Pub. Co., 96 Okla. 168, 221 P. 13; Cooper v. Long, 93 Okla. 239, 220 P. 610.

  6. Myers v. Denison

    230 P. 742 (Okla. 1924)   Cited 6 times

    ard v. Casler et al., 24 Okla. 275, 103 P. 740; Alcorn et al. v. Dennis, 25 Okla. 135, 105 P. 1012: Runyan v. Fisher, 28 Okla. 450, 114 P. 717; Hausan v. Parker, 31 Okla. 399, 121 P. 1063; Cowles v Lee, 35 Okla. 159, 128 P. 688; Scoville et ux. v. Powell et al., 33 Okla. 446, 126 P. 730; Patchell v. Garvin, 66 Okla. 184, 168 P. 423. Where a jury is waived and the cause submitted to the trial court the same rule that is applied to a verdict of a jury in reviewing such verdict on appeal is applied to the judgment of the court, acting in lieu of a jury, and such findings, when reasonably supported by the evidence in the case, are conclusive upon the Supreme Court upon all doubtful and uncertain questions of fact. Board v. Herndon, 84 Okla. 142, 203 P. 226; Anicker v. Doyle, 84 Okla. 62, 202 P. 281; Leiberman v. Merring-Martin-and Boise Co., 84 Okla. 168, 203 P. 1045; Gaines Bros. and Co. v. Citizens Bank of Henryetta, 84 Okla. 265, 204 P. 112; Denison v. Phipps, 87 Okla. 299, 211 P. 83; Smith v. Lindsey, 91 Okla. 8, 215 P. 791. The court having found as a matter of fact that defendant Denison had no knowledge as to who put up the money or to whom it belonged, that he had no knowledge, at the time of disbursing the money to Belcher that plaintiffs claimed any interest in the money, and that plaintiffs never claimed the money prior to its disbursement to Belcher, the judgment of the court will not be disturbed, and for the reasons herein stated the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

  7. Rock v. Robinette

    218 P. 808 (Okla. 1923)   Cited 3 times

    Gaines Bros. Co. v. Citizens Bank of Henryetta, 84 Okla. 265, 204 P. 112; Gayer v. Pearce, 86 Okla. 102, 206 P. 822; Schaff v. McGuyre, 87 Okla. 41, 208 P. 263. A later expression of opinion sustaining the opinions above quoted will be found in the cases of Smith v. Lindsay et al., 91 Okla. 8, 215 P. 791, and Dustin Groc. Feed Co. v. Lucas et al., 91 Okla. 11, 215 P. 417. The court having made a general finding, and there being material competent evidence to sustain the finding of the court, such finding is conclusive upon this court, and the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.

  8. In re Berryhill's Estate

    271 P. 1036 (Okla. Crim. App. 1928)   Cited 2 times

    There is a sharp conflict in the testimony. The rule is stated in Smith v. Lindsey, 91 Okla. 8, 215 P. 791: "Where the questions of marriage and legitimacy of children are involved as the basis of plaintiff's right to recover, and the testimony as to the marriage is conflicting, and such as reasonable men would draw different conclusions therefrom, this court will not disturb the verdict of the jury or findings of fact by the court below."